Jump to content


Photo

Patty's Mouth Moves


  • Please log in to reply
1282 replies to this topic

#1 SweatyYeti

SweatyYeti

    Sasquatch

  • Sésquac
  • 5,049 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 09:31 PM

Here are Frames 362 and 364...the Cibachrome versions....and Patty's mouth appears to move...


Posted Image


In Frame 362, Patty's mouth closes tighter, and her lower lip pulls-up.



This is Frame 362...with the contrast increased...

Posted Image


Also visible in that Frame is a line running from the corner of the nose, down to the edge of the lips. It becomes stronger in this frame...as normally happens, when the ends of the mouth/lips are pulled back, and upwards.


If Patty's mouth moves.....she's real. :)
  • 1
A message from Peter Byrne....to Pat Beaton:
The last time I met Patterson, at his home in Tampico, WA., the poor fellow was dying, sitting in his back garden on a wooden chair, a veritable skeleton...his fatal illness being Hodgsons disease. He was thoroughly depressed and very angry at the skepticism with which science - and many people - viewed the footage, 
and one of the last things he said to me was..."You know, Peter, we had an opportunity to shoot that thing. Bob had a loaded rifle on it. Maybe that's what we should have done. Then people would believe us."

#2 BobZenor

BobZenor

    Yeti

  • Sésquac
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 10:11 PM

I thought I was going to disagree because of the supposed DDA, Owen Caddy mouth movement. I think you actually show mouth movement so I don't find myself disagreeing at all. I think it likely looks different in reality. She might be snarling there.

Edited by BobZenor, 20 July 2011 - 10:16 PM.

  • 0

#3 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,541 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 10:37 PM

I checked it out on my cibachromes, and it is curious. Did you also notice what may be eyebrow raising/lowering?

That's worth exploring too.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#4 Kerchak

Kerchak

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,235 posts

Posted 20 July 2011 - 11:29 PM

Interesting. I must admit I can only see a slight difference and it may be due to the different angle. I was sure there was another GIF done where the mouth appears to open slightly. Wasn't that one of yours too Sweaty?

I've always thought that Patty looks quite ticked off there. I don't blame Roger for staying where he did. :o

Edited by Kerchak, 20 July 2011 - 11:29 PM.

  • 0
""My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch based on the grounds that the film (Patterson Gimlin Film) would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film."" - Dr Donald W. Grieve, London 1972.

#5 dopelyrics

dopelyrics

    Bukwas

  • Readers
  • 489 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 01:12 AM

This may be a question that has been asked a thousand times - if so apologies - but do these images show genuine, unaltered details of Patty's face? I find it remarkable that we can get such detailed close-ups from a film that was shot 100 feet away or so. Have any of these images been re-touched in any way do we know?
I am undecided about the PGF. I really don't know what I'm looking at, but if these images show features that haven't been altered, then they are very compelling.

Best.

Lee
  • 1

#6 SweetSusiq

SweetSusiq

    Skunk Ape

  • Sésquac
  • 3,273 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 06:34 AM

Interesting. I must admit I can only see a slight difference and it may be due to the different angle. I was sure there was another GIF done where the mouth appears to open slightly. Wasn't that one of yours too Sweaty?

I've always thought that Patty looks quite ticked off there. I don't blame Roger for staying where he did. :o

That was probably the only wise move these cowboys took.
Yikes twice..
How 2 men could have this adventure, and then spend the entire rest of their lives defending themselves, and people are still dissing their film..which has still *never* been proven as a hoax. :blink:
  • 0

#7 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 06:51 AM

How 2 men could have this adventure, and then spend the entire rest of their lives defending themselves, and people are still dissing their film..which has still *never* been proven as a hoax. :blink:

Imagine how Peter and Paul felt! Sorry...couldn't resist. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#8 xspider1

xspider1

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,133 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:18 AM

...and Patty's mouth appears to move...

I'd say you're right! And, I see what Bill means about the eyebrow area raising. Also, the rest of her face (cheek, jaw, etc.) seems to move quite naturally when she frowns :/. poor Patty! haha That's another really good observation and nice gif, Sweaty! :o
  • 0

From the Centre for Fortean Zoology, 'Statement of Core Belief':
9. That the CFZ should be an international brother/sisterhood of like minded people who work together, mindless of differences of creed and culture, to push back the boundaries of human knowledge, for no other reason than that it is a good thing to do...

 

 


#9 dopelyrics

dopelyrics

    Bukwas

  • Readers
  • 489 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 07:34 AM

But it's only actual movement if it is an untouched image, isn't it? Anyone?
Cheers!
  • 0

#10 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 08:29 AM

But it's only actual movement if it is an untouched image, isn't it? Anyone?
Cheers!

There is a guy on here who is the master historian on this stuff and owns a great deal of copies of the footage. He would be the one to ask. I will post his name and you can ask and see from him. He would be a great reference for this convo.

EDIT: LOL...it's Bill and he is already in this thread and has weighed in above. :blush:

Edited by HairyGreek, 21 July 2011 - 08:32 AM.

  • 0

#11 dopelyrics

dopelyrics

    Bukwas

  • Readers
  • 489 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 08:34 AM

Ah thanks HairyGreek. There has been so much stuff posted so I'm sure it has been covered. It's just trying to find it!
Cheers.
Lee
  • 0

#12 HairyGreek

HairyGreek

    Chiye-tanka

  • Banned
  • 960 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 09:01 AM

Ah thanks HairyGreek. There has been so much stuff posted so I'm sure it has been covered. It's just trying to find it!
Cheers.
Lee

Not a problem! I know the feeling. He has two great websites at the bottom of his post in his sig. I would suggest checking both out.
  • 0

#13 Harry

Harry

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 179 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 09:26 AM

I was very interested in this thread, but saw that the mouth movement noted appeared to possibly be in sync with the overall head movement between frames.
So, I split the animation into separate frames, then stabilized the images on Patty's eyes. As you can see below, once the face is stabilized, the mouth movement is smaller, but still seems to be there - particularly the corners of the mouth drawing down slightly.

The mouth and brow movement could be there, or could be film imperfections or variation - Bill, you may know more about that than I do (because I really don't know anything about film!)

I would love to hear some opinions on this now that the face is stabilized.

Posted Image

Edited by Harry, 21 July 2011 - 09:33 AM.

  • 0

#14 Harry

Harry

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 179 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 11:11 AM

Here is is slowed down.
Notice that there seems to be movement in the right cheek bone area that corresponds with the mouth corner. Both move down at the same time.

Posted Image
  • 0

#15 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,541 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 11:15 AM

Dopelyrics:

There are some issues with the cibachromes as to how much detail is actually reliable. Facial motions are on the border line of that reliability. That's why I said the motions were curious but didn't say they were conclusive.

The reliability of the cibachromes is something I've been quietly studying for some time now, but I have a few more pieces of the puzzle to locate and analyze before I can make any conclusions or publish a report piece on the issue.

So while I do encourage Sweati's work and do consider the topic worthy of further consideration, I can't personally consider the discussed facial motions conclusive as of yet.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#16 PBeaton

PBeaton

    Bigfoot

  • Members
  • 4,301 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 12:01 PM

Here is is slowed down.
Notice that there seems to be movement in the right cheek bone area that corresponds with the mouth corner. Both move down at the same time.

Posted Image

Sweaty,

Interestin'...

Harry,

You had me smilin' with the faster version, to cool ! :lol:

Myself, there is a strange little anomally goin' on when I look at it that I can't put my finger on. I can see the mouth thin', brow ridge thin' an cheek bone as well. The same goes for the darkness created by eye socket area an that little light spot, the fleshy little bag under the eyes, they both appear to elongate(as does cheek bone area). It's hard to say if it's actual movement, or a variation caused by the reflection of light or...huh...hard ta say? Interestin' just the same an once again SweatyYeti, good stuff.

Pat...
  • 0

#17 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,541 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 12:38 PM

Just wanted to elaborate on the issues needing consideration before conclusions can be drawn.

1. We know Cibachrome F352 is affected by an artifact (something that looks suspiciously like a hand and fingers) and it is not on the actual film, so we know the cibachromes can contain false image data. So with that in mind, we do need to cross check these two cibachromes in question F362 and F364, against other copies of the frames, to at least get a sense of whether any image error is a factor.

2. We need to verify the two images are scaled correctly to each other (using the landscape behind patty as the scaling reference) because the cibachromes are not exactly scaled the same as we receive them.

3. We need to ideally know where the anchor point is on the frames compared (the one common body feature used to position one frame over the other). It looks like the nose highlight is the anchor, but it would be helpful for Sweati to verify. This enables others to replicate the comparison with cibachrome copies they may possess.

4. There are actually two different versions of the Cibachromes (and DamnDirtyApe started a thread showing them, and he and I posted the two versions of the 12 known cibachromes for others to see and use). The DDA version is more grainy and the versions I have are more detail-blended/enhanced, so the two versions have slightly differing levels of detail. It would be wise to do this same comparison on both versions of the Cibachromes, and see if the apparent motions are in both versions.

5. I did notice some shifting of the highlights in the skull area, which is not a head moving part, and this must be considered in any oonclusion, to discount the prospect of highlight shifts being mis-construed as real facial motion.


Summing up, facial motion is potentially within the film grain resolution potential to show, but it is on the border where copy artifacts and highlight blooms caused by contrast enhancements could potentially skew the apparent results. SO the analysis under discussion here is a worthy one to consider, but we should be cautious about jumping to conclusions while we try to resolve the various factors of concern.

Bill

Note: Just a quick reminder that the Cibachromes are mis-numbered, and their verified frame count numbers are off by 2 (so cibachrome-362 is acually VFC-2 frame 364, and cibachrome-364 is actually VFC-2 Frame 366). But the cibachromes are commonly referenced by their common numbers 362 and 364.
  • 1
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/

#18 Harry

Harry

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 179 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 12:48 PM

Bill - I can only answer one question posed.
When I aligned the two frames, I used both the nose highlight and the right eye.
Of course there are no absolute elements to use to register because of the resolution. Just as best as could be done, given the images.
  • 0

#19 Bigfoothunter

Bigfoothunter

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 01:19 PM

:blink: Maybe Kitakaze was right ... Bob H must have confused his alleged part in a Bluff Creek spoof with Patterson and Gimlin with another film shot of someone else only weeks later. :wacko:

Let us call it 'the dual Patterson suits that honest Bob H couldn't tell apart'. And to the 'I can see an artificial eye thinkers' ... Bob H must have given Roger two fake eyes and had forgotten about it. Then spin that into the second fake eye was put on the suit that had the mechanical mouth. :lol:
  • 0

"Such is the Bigfoot skeptic. He'll tell you everything you don't know about a subject that you know much better than he does."      DWA/2013

 

In my world ... "The laws of nature cannot be violated - the laws of nature cannot be
changed - the laws of nature require no enforcement"

 

"A person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the man doing it."

 

 

 


#20 Bill

Bill

    Yeti

  • Members
  • 2,541 posts

Posted 21 July 2011 - 01:45 PM

Harry:

The nose highlight is a relatively good anchor point because it tends to be consistent in shape and form across multiple frame images, so that tends to rule out artifacts, and lends support to a fixed stability. Plus the nose highlight is generally considered a fixed facial point since it does not move as the mouth does.

So the nose as the anchor point is one good option for such an analysis.

Bill
  • 0
for my analysis of the PGF, please see http://www.themunnsreport.com/